Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Abascal

814 S.W.2d 389, 34 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 746, 1991 Tex. LEXIS 94
Texas Supreme Court·Decided June 19, 1991·No. D-0972·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this original mandamus proceeding relator seeks review of the propriety of sanctions imposed by respondent for abuse of discovery. We believe that the trial court should have the opportunity to reconsider the rulings of which relator complains in this proceeding in light of our opinions today in TransAmerican Natural Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 911 (Tex.1991), and Braden v. Downey, 811 S.W.2d 922 (Tex.1991). Accordingly, we deny this petition for mandamus as having been improvidently granted and vacate our order staying proceedings, without addressing the merits of the petition and without prejudice to relator again requesting relief from the court of appeals and this Court after the trial court has had an opportunity to reconsider its rulings.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Abascal, 814 S.W.2d 389, 34 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 746, 1991 Tex. LEXIS 94 (Tex. 1991).

814 S.W.2d 389 (Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Abascal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Abascal
831 S.W.2d 559 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1992)
State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Engelke
824 S.W.2d 747 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1992)
Lassiter v. Shavor
824 S.W.2d 667 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1992)